Ultrasound Testicles By Jim West


by Jim West

Here I am extending text found in my first book on ultrasound.

A child has one testicle bigger than the other. Mom is alarmed and takes the child to a medico. The medico wants to diagnose the child with ultrasound, claiming a concern over possible cancer etc.

It is nearly impossible to find anything objective in the mainstream about these concerns of ultrasound. However, it is clear that ultrasound is biologically destructive at the lowest intensities.

The question, “Does ultrasound damage the testicle”, is popular on the Internet, but the mainstream answer always, as it is for fetal ultrasound, “Ultrasound is harmless”. That answer is ostensibly designed to protect the patient from anxiety, and less known, to protect the doctor-patient bonding process — all in the supposed interest of the patient.


Fetal ultrasound can distort DNA, hormones, etc during fetal growth. The result is, among many, testicle damage, conditions, inflammations including even mild types of cancer. It is obvious that these and other symptoms or vulnerabilities could be caused by fetal ultrasound.

And now we have the conundrum: These ultrasound-caused distortions are later being diagnosed with ultrasound!

There is an increasing annual incidence of testicular cancer, and probably also all types of diseases, as predicted decades ago, in the early 1980s, by ultrasound researchers at Columbia University.

Testicular cancer is not considered to be very dangerous, but it can accompany other forms of cancer. It supposedly is found in 1 out of 250 men nowadays. It is said to “spread” from the testicles to form other cancers.

But there is no spread; it is just the obvious, the medico’s first recognition of the symptoms of ultrasound damage. Medicine would rather blame a symptom on another symptom rather than on the industrial environment, in this case, ultrasound.

Suspect causative factors are clearly medical radiation such as ultrasound, EMF, and then air pollution or other pollution exposure, which ultrasound damage potentiates.

Hard simple science, experiments with pregnant women subjects, supports these commonsense thoughts about ultrasound:

Feng (1996) found damage from fetal ultrasound — to the sperm stem cells (spermatogonia) contained in the testicles. See Reference below.

Using ultrasound to diagnose these stem cells would compound any possible problems, it seems obvious. Cancer is defined as the result of genetic damage.


Fetal ultrasound, a diagnostic tool, damages the fetal testicle. Abnormalities of the testicle appear later to parents and medicos. Medicos then knowingly or unknowingly continue the trend of damage by the use of ultrasound diagnostics and treatments.

A testicle is a container of permanent stem cells which are used to generate sperm. These stem cells are “spermatogonia”.

Ultrasound damages these stem cells in the male fetus, and damages the ova in the female fetus. Later, during any diagnosis that uses ultrasound, even more damaged (mutated) genetic matter is created. Mutated sperm and humans are the eventual result.

People are severely damaged before they are feti. Proof? Just look around, and compare generations. Look at the vast difference between grandparents, parents and children.


Z. Feng (1996)

[Topic: Testicles, Internal Cellular Damage]
[Method of observation: Electron Microscopy]

Effects Of Diagnostic Ultrasonic Wave On The Ultrastructures
of the Human Fetus Testicles During Mid-Stage Pregnancy

Fetuses with 20-28 weeks gestation age, destined to be aborted for whatever reasons, were divided into 4 equal groups (A, B, C, D).

Before abortion, mothers of each group received different diagnostic ultrasound irradiation [at mild intensity] for 5 min., 10 min., and 30 min., accordingly, except group D, which served as an unexposed control.

Results: After abortion, microscopically, the testicles of group C showed swollen spermatogonia with rarefaction of nuclear chromosome and obscurity of mitochondria structure with reduplication of splitting of basal membrane, but no change was found in other groups.


Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.
Fair Use Act Disclaimer: This site is for discussion purposes only. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Intellectual Property Rights: The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa 2020, All rights reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *